Christ will come again

[veteran]

You too: "Be forewarned" as you say . . . ^_^

daq, on 24 Mar 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:
WHERE IS THIS STATEMENT WRITTEN: "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water." ???

John 7:37-38 KJV
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Who should you "hear" dragonfly? Hear the one who can tell you where the above is written.
If he cannot tell you this then the same knows not whereof he speaks . . . :)

You still trying to apply literal events to come per God's Word as symbolic analogy, and symbolic analogy as a literal event, getting the meanings in God's Word backwards??? That's what Mysticism causes you know.

I'm not going to get into God's Word about the coming LITERAL River that will emit out of Christ's Milennium Temple in Jerusalem for the future, especially since you believe it is only a mystic metaphor.

There are many with an empirical scientific mindset that refuse to understand it too, and that's where you actually place yourself in.

There's some literal earth changes coming upon this earth with Christ's future second coming and thousand years reign in Jerusalem.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, dragonfly.

Hi daq,

Again, thank you for all that you've shared. I have questions about why you say the race is in the first half of the week, since I am under the impression it won't end until the last (very long) trumpet sounds. Also, much as I love the OJB, I wish it had a hover over glossary to read along with it. I have no yet gone over to the Chapter 14 thread, because I ought to hit the sack now. Tomorrow is another day. The Lord bless you. :)



Hi Retrobyter,

Being British, I have a deep affinity with spelling, and how it has changed over the centuries of the English language. May I suggest that there is probably a good reason the zeds in Azal and Azazel are different, and it doesn't stop God speaking through the fact of the similarity in the sounds - as daq has explained. You do realise he is drawing together a single theme which runs through the occurrences of the related meanings, only? Adding nothing.

There is more, too, (as I see it) which goes back to the baptism of John, which had never been applied to ordinary Israelites before. By it, God indicated to them their distance from Him. They were, spiritually, as 'afar off' as Gentiles, even though they had outward circumcision on their side.

In that sense, Israel, first, was 'brought nigh(er)' by repentance with respect to the One who would come after John; who would make THE way to come right into the presence of God. Repentance remains a critical issue for every would-be Christian, not just Gentile Christians. The 'Afar station' which Abraham saw, even before Jacob had been born, also has the meaning that Jacob was as 'afar' off as Abraham was, being yet in his loins.

Thus, for both the Israelite and the non-Israelite, the key moment of identity with Messiah is not in His genealogy, but in becoming one with Him in His death through operation of His Holy Spirit. Paul leads with this very point in Romans 9:4 '... unto whom pertain THE ADOPTION ...' He does not say anything about tribal affiliations as a bye into eternal life. He mentions his own by way of example of having a natural right, Messiah's by way of establishing His rights, and 'our twelve', Acts 26:7 by way of explanation to a foreign king, of the past and expected fulfilment of prophecies. Paul's own natural right lasted about a split second on the Damascus road when he saw Messiah for Himself, and still he was blind for three days. After he'd received his sight in more ways than one, he counted himself 'a prisoner of the Lord', which is a great way to express his loss of natural 'rights'.

No. It's as simple as the mathematical formula, "Ezel (Ezel) : Aatseel (Azal, Azel) :: Excel : Edsel," read "'Ezel' is to 'Aatseel' as 'Excel' is to 'Edsel'!" The Hebrew letter zayin (z) is as different from a tsadday (ts) as a "D" is from a "B!" The problem is STRICTLY in transliteration into English! The zayin SHOULD be rendered a "z," but the tsadday should NOT have been rendered a "z!" They may somewhat sound similar, but they are CERTAINLY not the same!

They don't even come from the same root words! Ezel (Strong's OT:237) comes from aazel (OT:235) meaning "to go away"; Aatseel (OT:682) comes from aatsal (OT:680) meaning "to join!" They are as different as "night" is from "light!"

And, all that daq has done is to cloud the issue with all the gobbledegook that he spills out of his mind onto the keyboard!

But, hey. Praise him all you want; you will anyway. Believe him, if you want. I don't, and I won't!

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran,

Acts 1 does not indicate that Jesus will arrive back on the Mount of Olives. That is not what the angel said.

If you compare the 'like manner' to which they referred, it ties in with that He Himself said about His return.



Hi daq,

I have been arguing for the cleaving of the Mount of Olives as a past event, for some years now, but I was looking at what modern maps call the Mount of Olives. I don't think it's the same hill as your studies indicate.

There is, also, great symbolism between hills/mountains and heads: His head and the 'head' of the Olive mountain; Horeb and the 'heads' in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; the head that was crowned with thorns and the heart (mind) which has been sprinkled from an evil conscience in Hebrews 10.

The Mount of Olives itself was once known as 'the mount of corruption', which is absolutely apposite for every generation and not less today in the face of visual media bombarding the mind (head) with invitations to sin in thought and deed. Praise the Lord for the sprinkling of the conscience and the power to heal minds and renew them. :)

I am now looking at the map of Jerusalem in my old Bible, with renewed understanding and interest. It has an area in the north-east, called Bezetha. Within that is marked the Pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda). North and west of that pool is an area defined by close dots, with ROYAL CAVERNS written within its boundary. These stretch from under the city wall built by Agrippa, to beyond his city wall, in which the Damascus Gate is set fairly near. Golgotha and Gethsemane appear quite separate from each other; Golgotha outside the boundary wall of Herod the Great to the west but inside Agrippa's, and Gethsemane is right outside to the east, in the Kidron valley. According to this, the nearest gate into the city from Gethsemane, leads straight into the Temple, crossing Solomon's Porch, which is the whole length, looking east.

The mountain - the flinty rock - was cleft.

Deuteronomy 32:13
He made him ride on the high places of the earth,
that he might eat the increase of the fields;
and he made him to suck honey out of the rock,
and oil out of the flinty rock;

Judges 14:14 '...
Out of the eater came forth meat,
and out of the strong came forth sweetness.

 

[daq]

Hi daq,

I have been arguing for the cleaving of the Mount of Olives as a past event, for some years now, but I was looking at what modern maps call the Mount of Olives. I don't think it's the same hill as your studies indicate.

There is, also, great symbolism between hills/mountains and heads: His head and the 'head' of the Olive mountain; Horeb and the 'heads' in the upper room on the day of Pentecost; the head that was crowned with thorns and the heart (mind) which has been sprinkled from an evil conscience in Hebrews 10.

The Mount of Olives itself was once known as 'the mount of corruption', which is absolutely apposite for every generation and not less today in the face of visual media bombarding the mind (head) with invitations to sin in thought and deed. Praise the Lord for the sprinkling of the conscience and the power to heal minds and renew them. :)

I am now looking at the map of Jerusalem in my old Bible, with renewed understanding and interest. It has an area in the north-east, called Bezetha. Within that is marked the Pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda). North and west of that pool is an area defined by close dots, with ROYAL CAVERNS written within its boundary. These stretch from under the city wall built by Agrippa, to beyond his city wall, in which the Damascus Gate is set fairly near. Golgotha and Gethsemane appear quite separate from each other; Golgotha outside the boundary wall of Herod the Great to the west but inside Agrippa's, and Gethsemane is right outside to the east, in the Kidron valley. According to this, the nearest gate into the city from Gethsemane, leads straight into the Temple, crossing Solomon's Porch, which is the whole length, looking east.

The mountain - the flinty rock - was cleft.

Deuteronomy 32:13
He made him ride on the high places of the earth,
that he might eat the increase of the fields;
and he made him to suck honey out of the rock,
and oil out of the flinty rock;

Judges 14:14 '...
Out of the eater came forth meat,
and out of the strong came forth sweetness.

Hi dragonfly, not sure what you mean by this statement: "I don't think it's the same hill as your studies indicate."
Are you saying you do not agree with my conclusions or are you saying that you agree as my studies indicate?

Keep in mind that in the time when Messiah was crucified it was Roman law that anyone sentenced to death was put to death in the same place where he was arrested. In the case of Yeshua that would be the garden of Gethsemane or nearby, ("a stones throw"). The only reason Gethsemane is thought to have been just on the other side of the Kidron at the base of the modern "Mount of Olives" is because of a misunderstanding of what is written in John 18:1 along with a lack of comparison to the similar account of David fleeing from Absalom. The names of the mounts have been changed for obvious and nefarious reasons, and the "futurists" (of the flesh-minded kind) love to have it so. Indeed what is in modern times called "the Mount of Olives" was formerly known as "the Mount of Corruption" in old time. Likewise father Abraham did not lift up his eyes and see the Mount of Corruption "afar off" but rather Mount Moriah in the land of Moriah. It was there that Abraham was willing to offer up his only son Isaac, in the highest point, wherein also is found the Kranion-Golgotha "Skull Face" in the side of the holy Mount. The pney-face of Golgotha looks toward Jerusalem from directly above the "Royal Cavern" and the later "Jeremiah's Grotto" (which is also beneath the Mount next to the Cavern or Cave). The Royal Cave is faintly outlined on the gold-yellow topography map at the top of the "Olivet Zeytiym" page and it is true that this area was called "Bezetha" or "New City" and occasionally-rarely "New Jerusalem" on some older maps:

In addition recent archeological evidence has fairly proven, (though it is now reburied) that this is indeed the location where Messiah was crucified. Likewise there is affirmation from the Scripture, (if one knows where to look) that the four post holes found at the site are correct:

Ark of the Covenant Part 2 - Mary Nell Wyatt 1996

In addition I found the following image file in a Google Image search while looking for fissures at Golgotha. When I went to the blog I was astounded at what I found. Whether the author is the one in the image or not what he is stating is that this image file is the fissure opening at the top of the crucifixion site, (which is not far from where the modern Muslim cemetery is located on the top of Skull Hill or the Skull Face). The fissure runs from the main post hole where the Cross of Messiah would have been placed when he was "stood up" on the post-stake. The fissure also runs from the post hole down twenty feet into the bedrock and into the chamber below where the blood ran, ("the Bay of Abraham"). This particular image file is not something I need to verify for myself because I already believe through what is written in the Gospel accounts that these things are true. However, if this be the case, then those who say they do not believe Zechariah 14:4 was fulfilled through Messiah, (because they have not seen it happen with their own "eyes of the flesh") are themselves ignoring the clear and plain as day physical-geologic evidence. Should not this kind of physical evidence be common knowledge amongst Christians, the faithful, all disciples of Yeshua, modern scholars, Christian apologists, and even the so-called prophecy experts? The same is true of the secondary fissure in the bedrock underneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre which runs through the temple mount exactly beneath the very spot where the massive veil would have been hanging at the time of the great earthquake of Matthew 27:51. Millions of pilgrims to the Holy Land have seen this fissure through the ages but clearly the many have an alternative agenda. All those with their agendas including those here in this very thread are going to have a lot of explaining to do when they stand before the Master. :)

Providing Light: Golgotha

 

[veteran]

Don't let the false prophets here sway you Dragonfly...

Acts 1:10-12
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, Which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven."
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
(KJV)

The KJV phrase "in like manner" is Greek tropos (5158), which means 'a turn i.e. (by implication) mode or style. It is the same Greek word as trope (5157) which refers to the turning or revolution of heavenly bodies. So the Greek is more specific that it's in the multiple revolution turn sense, which points to the same path or procession of heavenly orbs.

Thus per the Zechariah 14 Scripture, Christ's feet set down upon the Mount of Olives at His return, as written there.

 

[daq]

Don't let the false prophets here sway you Dragonfly...

Acts 1:10-12
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, Which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven."
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
(KJV)

The KJV phrase "in like manner" is Greek tropos (5158), which means 'a turn i.e. (by implication) mode or style. It is the same Greek word as trope (5157) which refers to the turning or revolution of heavenly bodies. So the Greek is more specific that it's in the multiple revolution turn sense, which points to the same path or procession of heavenly orbs.

Thus per the Zechariah 14 Scripture, Christ's feet set down upon the Mount of Olives at His return, as written there.

Never have I claimed to be a "prophet" and there seems to be no one else here aside from myself and dragonfly which appears to disagree with the eyes of the flesh "Bible scholars" such as yourself and Retrobyter. If anyone here is false it is because he has neither the Scripture, nor the Spirit of the Word, nor the seed of God which is the seed of the Word dwelling in him. Your statement that the feet of Messiah will "set down upon the Mount of Olives at his return" once more in the future basically denies the fact that he already did so many times over in the first Advent, (including even the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17-21). Essentially you deny that he already came in the flesh even though you do not openly admit it because you claim that he did not accomplish everything written concerning himself at the Cross and must now return in at least some form of physical state once again so as to "finish the job" which you claim is not yet complete. Your error is blatant because it stems from the fact that you do not perceive Messiah as being IN YOU but rather OUTSIDE of yourself.

Ezekiel 43:1-7 KJV
1. Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the east:
2. And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
3. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.
4. And the glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
5. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the Lord filled the house.
6. And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7. And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

The Ezekiel Temple is the body of Messiah and the place of the soles of his feet forever.
And the Father likewise because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

2 Corinthians 5:14-17
14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died;
15. and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
16. Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.
17. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. [Revelation 21:5]

 

[daq]

Shalom, dragonfly.


No. It's as simple as the mathematical formula, "Ezel (Ezel) : Aatseel (Azal, Azel) :: Excel : Edsel," read "'Ezel' is to 'Aatseel' as 'Excel' is to 'Edsel'!" The Hebrew letter zayin (z) is as different from a tsadday (ts) as a "D" is from a "B!" The problem is STRICTLY in transliteration into English! The zayin SHOULD be rendered a "z," but the tsadday should NOT have been rendered a "z!" They may somewhat sound similar, but they are CERTAINLY not the same!

They don't even come from the same root words! Ezel (Strong's OT:237) comes from aazel (OT:235) meaning "to go away"; Aatseel (OT:682) comes from aatsal (OT:680) meaning "to join!" They are as different as "night" is from "light!"

And, all that daq has done is to cloud the issue with all the gobbledegook that he spills out of his mind onto the keyboard!

But, hey. Praise him all you want; you will anyway. Believe him, if you want. I don't, and I won't!

This issue has been clouded by the minds of scholars for over a thousand years because like yourself none of them appear to be capable of perceiving the symbolism or the fact that this passage is prophetic concerning Messiah. One would think that the rare mentioning of three days and three arrows might have been a clue to this reality. My position is "triangulated" and confirmed by what is written in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the text quoted by the New Covenant writers so it would behoove you to check it once in a while, (likewise as I saw in another thread where you were pontificating about Adam and Edom and suggesting that Sumeon Petros and Iakobon-James were incorrect in what was quoted from Amos in Acts; if you had checked the Septuagint you would have discovered your error). Here is why you are incorrect again:

The Stone of Ezel

"The Stone of the Way"
"The Stone of Departure"
"The Stone that sheweth the Way"
"The Stone of the Cavern" (where David hid)
"The Stone of Division" (the parting of "the two ways")
"The Stone of the Deed" (or "day of business") Ergon-Ergab (Septuagint-Greek "works")

King James Translators' Notes
quickly: or, diligently: Heb. greatly
Ezel: or, that sheweth the way
when the...: Heb. in the day of the business
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
19. when thou hast stayed three days-either with your family at Beth-lehem, or wherever you find it convenient.
come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand-Hebrew, "in the day," or "time of the business," when the same matter was under inquiry formerly (1Sa 19:22).
remain by the stone Ezel-Hebrew, "the stone of the way"; a sort of milestone which directed travellers. He was to conceal himself in some cave or hiding-place near that spot.
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And when thou hast stayed three days,.... From court, either at Bethlehem, which seems most probable, or in some other place incognito; however, not in the field he proposed to hide himself in, where he could not continue so long for want of food: then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself; which makes it clear that he did not continue there during that time, but went elsewhere; from whence he was to come in haste at the expiration of three days, to the place he first hid himself in, and which was fixed upon to meet at: when the business was in hand; when the affair was discoursed of, about getting knowledge how Saul was affected to David, and of informing him of it; or "on the day of work" (x); or business, on a working day, as the Septuagint; and so the Targum, on a common day; when, as the Vulgate Latin, it was lawful to work on it; and such was the day when Jonathan and David conversed together about the above affair; it being the day before the new moon, or first day of the month, on which day they used not to work: Some render it, "thou shalt three times go down" (y) to that place; and the sense is, that he should come on the morrow, and if he found not Jonathan there, he might conclude that as yet he knew nothing of his father's mind, and therefore should come the day following that; and if he found him not then, to come on the third day, that so he might be on the spot, let him come on which day he would: and shalt remain by the stone Ezel; which, because it signifies "going", the Jewish commentators generally understand it as a sign to direct travellers which way to go; but one would think this should be an improper place for David to be near, since it must be where two or more ways met, and so a public frequented place; others think therefore it had its name from David and Jonathan often going thither, to discourse with each other; the Septuagint calls it Ergab; and so the place where Jonathan, the son of Saul, exercised himself by shooting darts, is called by Jerom (z);
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Ver. 19. Morrow. Hebrew, "and after three days (Haydock; or, on the third day) thou shalt," &c. Syriac and Arabic, "Thou wilt be called for at table, at the third hour." (Calmet) --- Septuagint use the same word, trioseuseis, as in the following verse: "I will shoot thrice at wild beasts, with arrows, sending as far as Laarmattarai," so here they may insinuate that David must "wait three days," (Haydock) or come on each of these days, that he may not slip an opportunity. (Cajetan) --- Work. Le Clerc translates, "in the day of the business." Protestants, "where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and shalt remain by the stone Ezel." Alexandrian Septuagint, "by this affair." Vatican [Septuagint], "Ergab," a word which Grabe admits instead of ergon, in his edition. (Haydock) --- Other copies, with the Syriac and Arabic, have simply, "near this stone," which Junius styles speculam, as if it were a butt or landmark, (Calmet) or a stone to shew the road, (Lyranus) or mile-stone, (Tirinus) which latter supposition is not probable, as David desired to be concealed. (Menochius) --- He would therefore choose some cavern, so as to be able to hear what Jonathan said, without being seen. (Haydock) --- this precaution was necessary for the safety of both. (Menochius)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id630.html

The authors above do not realize that the Stone itself contains the hiding place, Clift, Cave, or Cavern.
Masoretic 1 Samuel 20:41 contains HSN#681 'etsel yet the KJV does not render it Ezel though it speaks of the same:

1 Samuel 20:41 KJV
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place [HSN#681 'etsel] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

However, the Young's Literal Bible does indeed correct this error:

1 Samuel 20:41 YLT (Young's Literal Bible)
41. The youth hath gone, and David hath risen from Ezel, [HSN#681 'etsel] at the south, and falleth on his face to the earth, and boweth himself three times, and they kiss one another, and they weep one with another, till David exerted himself;

1 Samuel 20:41 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
41. Hana`ar ba' w-Dawid qam me'etsel hanegeb {*}.Wayipol l'apayw 'artsah. Wayishtachuw shalosh p`amiym.Wayishquw 'iysh 'et- re`ehuw. Wayibkuw 'iysh 'et- re`ehuw`ad- Dawid higdiyl.

As noted above, in the various resources provided, the LXX Septuagint employs the word "ergab" which is a form of "ergon"-deeds-works and must have been taken as a play on the statement "in the day of the deed" which is in both texts. The critical point is that the LXX Septuagint was translated some three hundred years before Messiah was crucified at Golgotha. Seventy or more Scribes, Elders, and Priests from Judah-Benjamin-Jerusalem were commissioned to do the work in Egypt, (Jerusalem actually sits within the southern boundary of Benjamin which tribe king Saul was from). Please listen carefully Retrobyter: THE TRANSLATORS OF THE SEPTUAGINT DISAGREED WITH YOU and translated both verses with the same word "ergab" into the Greek. BOTH HSN#237 EZEL and HSN#681 'ETSEL ARE TRANSLATED AS ERGAB.

Kings I (I Samuel) 20:19-41 LXX Septuagint (Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851)
19 And thou shalt stay three days, and watch an opportunity, and shalt come to thy place where thou mayest hide thyself in the day of thy business, and thou shalt wait by that ergab.
20 And I will shoot three arrows, aiming them at a mark.
21 And behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go find me the arrow.
22 If I should expressly say to the lad, The arrow is here, and on this side of thee, take it; then come, for it is well with thee, and there is no reason for fear, as the Lord lives: but if I should say thus to the young man, The arrow is on that side of thee, and beyond; go, for the Lord hath sent thee away.
23 And as for the word which thou and I have spoken, behold, the Lord is witness between me and thee for ever.
24 So David hides himself in the field, and the new month arrives, and the king comes to the table to eat.
25 And he sat upon his seat as in former times, even on his seat by the wall, and he went before Jonathan; and Abenner sat on one side of Saul, and the place of David was empty.
26 And Saul said nothing on that day, for he said, It seems to have fallen out that he is not clean, because he has not purified himself.
27 And it came to pass on the morrow, on the second day of the month, that the place of David was empty; and Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why has not the son of Jessae attended both yesterday and today at the table?
28 And Jonathan answered Saul, and said to him, David asked leave of me to go as far as Bethleem his city;
29 and he said, Let me go, I pray thee, for we have a family sacrifice in the city, and my brethren have sent for me; and now, if I have found grace in thine eyes, I will even go over and see my brethren: therefore he is not present at the table of the king.
30 And Saul was exceedingly angry with Jonathan, and said to him, Thou son of traitorous damsels! for do I not know that thou art an accomplice with the son of Jessae to thy same, and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness?
31 For so long as the son of Jessae lives upon the earth, thy kingdom shall not be established: now then send and take the young man, for he shall surely die.
32 And Jonathan answered Saul, Why is he to die? What has he done?
33 And Saul lifted up his spear against Jonathan to slay him: so Jonathan knew that this evil was determined on by his father to slay David.
34 And Jonathan sprang up from the table in great anger, and did not eat bread on the second day of the month, for he grieved bitterly for David, because his father determined on mischief against him.
35 And morning came, and Jonathan went out to the field, as he appointed to do for a signal to David, and a little boy was with him. 36 And he said to the boy, Run, find me the arrows which I shoot: and the boy ran, and Jonathan shot an arrow, and sent it beyond him.
37 And the boy came to the place where the arrow was which Jonathan shot; and Jonathan cried out after the lad, and said, The arrow is on that side of thee and beyond thee.
38 And Jonathan cried out after his boy, saying, Make all speed, and stay not. And Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows, and brought the arrows to his master. 39 And the boy knew nothing, only Jonathan and David knew.
40 And Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to his boy, Go, enter into the city.
41 And when the lad went in, then David arose from the argab, and fell upon his face, and did obeisance to him three times, and they kissed each other, and wept for each other, for a great while.
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Kings%20I/index.htm

1 Samuel 20:19 Greek OT: Septuagint - Transliterated
19 kai trisseuseis kai episkepsē kai ēξeis eis ton topon sou ou ekrubēs en tē ēmera tē ergasimē kai kathēsē para to ergab ekeino
http://biblehub.com/sept/1_samuel/20.htm

1 Samuel 20:41 Greek OT: Septuagint - Transliterated
41 kai ōs eisēlthen to paidarion kai dauid anestē apo tou ergab kai epesen epi prosōpon autou kai prosekunēsen autō tris kai katephilēsen ekastos ton plēsion autou kai eklausen ekastos tō plēsion autou eōs sunteleias megalēs
http://biblehub.com/sept/1_samuel/20.htm

Thus the Cave where David hid himself is prophetic of Beit ha-'Etsel ~ "The House of the Side" :)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, daq.

That's a LOAD of garbage! How do you EVER embolden yourself to say such malarkey?! Have you no sense at all?!! Have you no SHAME at all?!! Are you trying to drive EVERYONE as crazy as you?! Is it totally impossible for you to say you simply were wrong? It's easy to say; say it with me, "I was wrong." That's all you had to say! What is all this gibberish that you keep spouting?!

Let's take the time to go through the last post and dissect it. My words will be purple:

This issue has been clouded by the minds of scholars for over a thousand years because like yourself none of them appear to be capable of perceiving the symbolism or the fact that this passage is prophetic concerning Messiah.

That's just dumb. Since when is 1 Samu'el 20 a "prophecy of the Messiah?!" I take back what I said earlier; you ARE "silly!"

One would think that the rare mentioning of three days and three arrows might have been a clue to this reality.

No, it was a TYPICAL move by archers practicing to carry so many arrows. It gives one a chance to improve one's aim before one must gather the arrows to try again One also doesn't need to be carrying too many arrows if he's shooting at an immovable target; no sense carrying too much weight. You, sir, are a master manipulator. You would take a mere fact like three days and three arrows and equate it with ... what? ... three days and three nights? And, then you say that this passage, a simple historical account of Daviyd and Yohonatan, being a Messianic prophecy is a "REALITY?" You need to have a "reality CHECK!" The third day was because of Yohanatan's calculation: He reasoned that his father Sha'uwl would miss Daviyd but not say anything the first day. The second day, Sha'uwl would confront Yohanatan, asking where Daviyd was and that would give his son the information he would need to instruct Daviyd the third day.

My position is "triangulated" and confirmed by what is written in the Septuagint.

If anything, your position is BEFUDDLED and CONFUSED by what is written in the Septuagint! The Septuagint, men's first attempt at translating the Scriptures from one language (Hebrew) into another (Greek), has MANY errors, just as ANY translation or copy of the Scriptures will have! HUMAN BEINGS MAKE MISTAKES!!! THAT'S a fact! THAT'S reality!

The Septuagint is the text quoted by the New Covenant writers so it would behoove you to check it once in a while, (likewise as I saw in another thread where you were pontificating about Adam and Edom and suggesting that Simeon Petros and Iakobon-James were incorrect in what was quoted from Amos in Acts; if you had checked the Septuagint you would have discovered your error).

Well, that explains from whence the error into the Greek came. Chalk up another error in the Septuagint! YOU would be wise not to place your faith in ANY work by human hands! Had I checked the Septuagint at the start I would have discovered the Septuagint's error! I wasn't even around when the error was introduced, btw!

Now, if only you could read. You failed to see that I was NOT saying that Ya`aqov (James) was wrong or misquoted `Amowc (Amos)! What I said was that it was an error in translating Hebrew into Greek! And, you're right! The error already was present in the Greek of the Septuagint! This was probably responsible for the Hebrew (or Aramaic) account being poorly translated into the Greek of Acts 15 in the B'rit Chadashah (the NT)! I'm sure the LXX had its influence on the B'rit Chadashah's translation, too.

Here is why you are incorrect again:

The Stone of Ezel

"The Stone of the Way"
"The Stone of Departure"
"The Stone that sheweth the Way"
"The Stone of the Cavern" (where David hid)
"The Stone of Division" (the parting of "the two ways")
"The Stone of the Deed" (or "day of business") Ergon-Ergab (Septuagint-Greek "works")

King James Translators' Notes
quickly: or, diligently: Heb. greatly
Ezel: or, that sheweth the way
when the...: Heb. in the day of the business
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
19. when thou hast stayed three days-either with your family at Beth-lehem, or wherever you find it convenient.
come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand-Hebrew, "in the day," or "time of the business," when the same matter was under inquiry formerly (1Sa 19:22).
remain by the stone Ezel-Hebrew, "the stone of the way"; a sort of milestone which directed travellers. He was to conceal himself in some cave or hiding-place near that spot.
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And when thou hast stayed three days,.... From court, either at Bethlehem, which seems most probable, or in some other place incognito; however, not in the field he proposed to hide himself in, where he could not continue so long for want of food: then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself; which makes it clear that he did not continue there during that time, but went elsewhere; from whence he was to come in haste at the expiration of three days, to the place he first hid himself in, and which was fixed upon to meet at: when the business was in hand; when the affair was discoursed of, about getting knowledge how Saul was affected to David, and of informing him of it; or "on the day of work" (x); or business, on a working day, as the Septuagint; and so the Targum, on a common day; when, as the Vulgate Latin, it was lawful to work on it; and such was the day when Jonathan and David conversed together about the above affair; it being the day before the new moon, or first day of the month, on which day they used not to work: Some render it, "thou shalt three times go down" (y) to that place; and the sense is, that he should come on the morrow, and if he found not Jonathan there, he might conclude that as yet he knew nothing of his father's mind, and therefore should come the day following that; and if he found him not then, to come on the third day, that so he might be on the spot, let him come on which day he would: and shalt remain by the stone Ezel; which, because it signifies "going", the Jewish commentators generally understand it as a sign to direct travellers which way to go; but one would think this should be an improper place for David to be near, since it must be where two or more ways met, and so a public frequented place; others think therefore it had its name from David and Jonathan often going thither, to discourse with each other; the Septuagint calls it Ergab; and so the place where Jonathan, the son of Saul, exercised himself by shooting darts, is called by Jerom (z);
http://biblecommenter.com/1_samuel/20-19.htm

Ver. 19. Morrow. Hebrew, "and after three days (Haydock; or, on the third day) thou shalt," &c. Syriac and Arabic, "Thou wilt be called for at table, at the third hour." (Calmet) --- Septuagint use the same word, trioseuseis, as in the following verse: "I will shoot thrice at wild beasts, with arrows, sending as far as Laarmattarai," so here they may insinuate that David must "wait three days," (Haydock) or come on each of these days, that he may not slip an opportunity. (Cajetan) --- Work. Le Clerc translates, "in the day of the business." Protestants, "where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and shalt remain by the stone Ezel." Alexandrian Septuagint, "by this affair." Vatican [Septuagint], "Ergab," a word which Grabe admits instead of ergon, in his edition. (Haydock) --- Other copies, with the Syriac and Arabic, have simply, "near this stone," which Junius styles speculam, as if it were a butt or landmark, (Calmet) or a stone to shew the road, (Lyranus) or mile-stone, (Tirinus) which latter supposition is not probable, as David desired to be concealed. (Menochius) --- He would therefore choose some cavern, so as to be able to hear what Jonathan said, without being seen. (Haydock) --- this precaution was necessary for the safety of both. (Menochius)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id630.html

The authors above do not realize that the Stone itself contains the hiding place, Clift, Cave, or Cavern.

Oh, so now you use these commentators "to support your view" AND you're not going to correct me only but also all these commentators, as well? Talk about ARROGANCE! The stone MAY have had some "cleft or cave" in it or the entrance to some underground "cavern," but if it did, it would be well known.

Remember: I don't respond favorably to commentaries because they are, after all, the works of men and are therefore susceptible to errors. Most of these men never left their office to comment on these very real locations and places in the Holy Land without ever seeing them first hand!

Second, after ... HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS did they comment? Does one truly expect the landscape to go unchanged for all that time? So, these commentators have no way to know definitively WHAT this eben-stone looked like! Frankly, neither do you or I!

However, as far as an explanation on the timing, Gill's explanation is probably closest. "On the day of work" or "in the day of business" probably refers to the first normal business day after the Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon holiday when Daviyd was supposed to be in king Sha'uwl's presence and no work was to be done. The fact that we're talking about a two-day holiday for the beginning of the month suggests that one of those days was the normal, weekly Shabbat.

Masoretic 1 Samuel 20:41 contains HSN#681 'etsel yet the KJV does not render it Ezel though it speaks of the same:

1 Samuel 20:41 KJV
41. And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place [HSN#681 'etsel] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

However, the Young's Literal Bible does indeed correct this error:

1 Samuel 20:41 YLT (Young's Literal Bible)
41. The youth hath gone, and David hath risen from Ezel, [HSN#681 'etsel] at the south, and falleth on his face to the earth, and boweth himself three times, and they kiss one another, and they weep one with another, till David exerted himself;

1 Samuel 20:41 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
41. Hana`ar ba' w-Dawid qam me'etsel hanegeb {*}.Wayipol l'apayw 'artsah. Wayishtachuw shalosh p`amiym.Wayishquw 'iysh 'et- re`ehuw. Wayibkuw 'iysh 'et- re`ehuw`ad- Dawid higdiyl.

Thank you for the Transliterated Unaccented Bible version. MUCH easier to read than all the English versions (although it has its own idiosyncrasies)! "Me'etsel haNegev" means "From the side of the Negev (or the south)." Quit making it complicated!

And, Young's Literal Bible has NEVER "corrected" ANY error without introducing its own errors! I wouldn't trust that version if you PAID ME!

As noted above, in the various resources provided, the LXX Septuagint employs the word "ergab" which is a form of "ergon"-deeds-works and must have been taken as a play on the statement "in the day of the deed" which is in both texts. The critical point is that the LXX Septuagint was translated some three hundred years before Messiah was crucified at Golgotha. Seventy or more Scribes, Elders, and Priests from Judah-Jerusalem were commissioned to do the work in Egypt. Please listen carefully Retrobyter: THEY DISAGREED WITH YOU and translated both verses with the same word "ergab" into the Greek Septuagint. BOTH HSN#237 EZEL and HSN#681 'ETSEL ARE TRANSLATED AS ERGAB.

Kings I (I Samuel) 20:19-41 LXX Septuagint (Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851)
19 And thou shalt stay three days, and watch an opportunity, and shalt come to thy place where thou mayest hide thyself in the day of thy business, and thou shalt wait by that ergab.
20 And I will shoot three arrows, aiming them at a mark.
21 And behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go find me the arrow.
22 If I should expressly say to the lad, The arrow is here, and on this side of thee, take it; then come, for it is well with thee, and there is no reason for fear, as the Lord lives: but if I should say thus to the young man, The arrow is on that side of thee, and beyond; go, for the Lord hath sent thee away.
23 And as for the word which thou and I have spoken, behold, the Lord is witness between me and thee for ever.
24 So David hides himself in the field, and the new month arrives, and the king comes to the table to eat.
25 And he sat upon his seat as in former times, even on his seat by the wall, and he went before Jonathan; and Abenner sat on one side of Saul, and the place of David was empty.
26 And Saul said nothing on that day, for he said, It seems to have fallen out that he is not clean, because he has not purified himself.
27 And it came to pass on the morrow, on the second day of the month, that the place of David was empty; and Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why has not the son of Jessae attended both yesterday and today at the table?
28 And Jonathan answered Saul, and said to him, David asked leave of me to go as far as Bethleem his city;
29 and he said, Let me go, I pray thee, for we have a family sacrifice in the city, and my brethren have sent for me; and now, if I have found grace in thine eyes, I will even go over and see my brethren: therefore he is not present at the table of the king.
30 And Saul was exceedingly angry with Jonathan, and said to him, Thou son of traitorous damsels! for do I not know that thou art an accomplice with the son of Jessae to thy same, and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness?
31 For so long as the son of Jessae lives upon the earth, thy kingdom shall not be established: now then send and take the young man, for he shall surely die.
32 And Jonathan answered Saul, Why is he to die? What has he done?
33 And Saul lifted up his spear against Jonathan to slay him: so Jonathan knew that this evil was determined on by his father to slay David.
34 And Jonathan sprang up from the table in great anger, and did not eat bread on the second day of the month, for he grieved bitterly for David, because his father determined on mischief against him.
35 And morning came, and Jonathan went out to the field, as he appointed to do for a signal to David, and a little boy was with him. 36 And he said to the boy, Run, find me the arrows which I shoot: and the boy ran, and Jonathan shot an arrow, and sent it beyond him.
37 And the boy came to the place where the arrow was which Jonathan shot; and Jonathan cried out after the lad, and said, The arrow is on that side of thee and beyond thee.
38 And Jonathan cried out after his boy, saying, Make all speed, and stay not. And Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows, and brought the arrows to his master. 39 And the boy knew nothing, only Jonathan and David knew.
40 And Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to his boy, Go, enter into the city.
41 And when the lad went in, then David arose from the argab, and fell upon his face, and did obeisance to him three times, and they kissed each other, and wept for each other, for a great while.
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Kings%20I/index.htm

1 Samuel 20:19 Greek OT: Septuagint - Transliterated
19 kai trisseuseis kai episkepsē kai ēξeis eis ton topon sou ou ekrubēs en tē ēmera tē ergasimē kai kathēsē para to ergab ekeino
http://biblehub.com/sept/1_samuel/20.htm

1 Samuel 20:41 Greek OT: Septuagint - Transliterated
41 kai ōs eisēlthen to paidarion kai dauid anestē apo tou ergab kai epesen epi prosōpon autou kai prosekunēsen autō tris kai katephilēsen ekastos ton plēsion autou kai eklausen ekastos tō plēsion autou eōs sunteleias megalēs
http://biblehub.com/sept/1_samuel/20.htm

Thus the Cave where David hid himself is prophetic of Beit ha-'Etsel ~ "The House of the Side" :)



1 Samuel 20:41
1 Samuel 20:41
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
[A place toward the south] An unintelligible description; one expects a repetition of the description of David's hiding-place in 1 Sam 20:19. The Septuagint in both places has "argab," a word meaning a "heap of stones." If this be the true reading, David's hiding-place was either a natural cavernous rock which was called "Argab," or some ruin of an ancient building, equally suited for a hiding-place.

(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) (Emphasis mine.)

It's really quite simple. It was a MARKER on the road, possibly where two road met, but DEFINITELY a "sign post!" In any case, the word "mee'eetsel" in 1 Samu'el 20:41 is NOT a proper name here, and it simply means "the side of." Which side? "haNegev" "of the Negev-side" or "of the south!"

 

[daq]

Shalom, daq.


That's a LOAD of garbage! How do you EVER embolden yourself to say such malarkey?! Have you no sense at all?!! Have you no SHAME at all?!! Are you trying to drive EVERYONE as crazy as you?! Is it totally impossible for you to say you simply were wrong? It's easy to say; say it with me, "I was wrong." That's all you had to say! What is all this gibberish that you keep spouting?!

Let's take the time to go through the last post and dissect it. My words will be purple:

That's just dumb. Since when is 1 Samu'el 20 a "prophecy of the Messiah?!" I take back what I said earlier; you ARE "silly!"


No, it was a TYPICAL move by archers practicing to carry so many arrows. It gives one a chance to improve one's aim before one must gather the arrows to try again One also doesn't need to be carrying too many arrows if he's shooting at an immovable target; no sense carrying too much weight. You, sir, are a master manipulator. You would take a mere fact like three days and three arrows and equate it with ... what? ... three days and three nights? And, then you say that this passage, a simple historical account of Daviyd and Yohonatan, being a Messianic prophecy is a "REALITY?" You need to have a "reality CHECK!" The third day was because of Yohanatan's calculation: He reasoned that his father Sha'uwl would miss Daviyd but not say anything the first day. The second day, Sha'uwl would confront Yohanatan, asking where Daviyd was and that would give his son the information he would need to instruct Daviyd the third day.

If anything, your position is BEFUDDLED and CONFUSED by what is written in the Septuagint! The Septuagint, men's first attempt at translating the Scriptures from one language (Hebrew) into another (Greek), has MANY errors, just as ANY translation or copy of the Scriptures will have! HUMAN BEINGS MAKE MISTAKES!!! THAT'S a fact! THAT'S reality!

Well, that explains from whence the error into the Greek came. Chalk up another error in the Septuagint! YOU would be wise not to place your faith in ANY work by human hands! Had I checked the Septuagint at the start I would have discovered the Septuagint's error! I wasn't even around when the error was introduced, btw!

Now, if only you could read. You failed to see that I was NOT saying that Ya`aqov (James) was wrong or misquoted `Amowc (Amos)! What I said was that it was an error in translating Hebrew into Greek! And, you're right! The error already was present in the Greek of the Septuagint! This was probably responsible for the Hebrew (or Aramaic) account being poorly translated into the Greek of Acts 15 in the B'rit Chadashah (the NT)! I'm sure the LXX had its influence on the B'rit Chadashah's translation, too.

Thank you for the Transliterated Unaccented Bible version. MUCH easier to read than all the English versions (although it has its own idiosyncrasies)! "Me'etsel haNegev" means "From the side of the Negev (or the south)." Quit making it complicated!

And, Young's Literal Bible has NEVER "corrected" ANY error without introducing its own errors! I wouldn't trust that version if you PAID ME!

It's really quite simple. It was a MARKER on the road, possibly where two road met, but DEFINITELY a "sign post!" In any case, the word "mee'eetsel" in 1 Samu'el 20:41 is NOT a proper name here, and it simply means "the side of." Which side? "haNegev" "of the Negev-side" or "of the south!"

You think this a legitimate argument? So you are wiser than those who translated the Septuagint which all the New Testament authors quote from? And Young's Literal Bible has nothing up against your vast wealth of superior knowledge? You do realize that the Masoretic Text is only between one thousand and sixteen hundred years new correct? The Masoretic Text was compiled between 700AD and 1000AD which means that the older Greek Septuagint predates the Masoretic by at least a thousand years. In addition you are ignoring the clues which are actually given to you in the Masoretic Text, (shown in this thread and many others) which you claim to rely on even as you opt out for your own eyes of the flesh understanding above and beyond what many scholars before you have already grappled with to attempt an understanding of a very difficult topic. Sorry for your left handed euonumos-luck but this is the real world: Johnny Rotten does not get a trophy every time he strikes out, neither does he pass go, neither does he collect two hundred dollars, neither does he receive a get out of jail free card, neither do people lie to him and admit they are wrong when they know they are not simply to stroke his ego and keep him pacified, and neither does name calling and hatred get him an A+ in debate class. :)

Shalom, daq.

That's a LOAD of garbage! How do you EVER embolden yourself to say such malarkey?! Have you no sense at all?!! Have you no SHAME at all?!! Are you trying to drive EVERYONE as crazy as you?! Is it totally impossible for you to say you simply were wrong? It's easy to say; say it with me, "I was wrong." That's all you had to say! What is all this gibberish that you keep spouting?!

Let's take the time to go through the last post and dissect it. My words will be purple:

That's just dumb. Since when is 1 Samu'el 20 a "prophecy of the Messiah?!" I take back what I said earlier; you ARE "silly!"

Why am I not surprised that you take back what you said? Our words reveal what is in our hearts just as the Master says:

Shalom, daq.

Frankly, no, the letters to the seven Messianic communities of the Book of the Revelation of Yeshua` do NOT apply to me directly. That's not to say I can't learn from their positive and negative examples and the Master's reactions to their behavior, but they WEREN'T written to me! It's just NUTS to think they were! LOL! Are you meshuggah?! :blink: ;)

me·shuga adjective \mə-ˈshu̇-gə\
Definition of MESHUGA

: crazy, foolish
Variants of MESHUGA


me·shuga or me·shug·ge also me·shug·ah or me·shug·gah
Examples of MESHUGA

1. <when your mother is meshuga like his was, a lifetime of therapy is pretty much a foregone conclusion>

Origin of MESHUGA
Yiddish meshuge, from Hebrew mĕshuggāʽ
First Known Use: 1885
Related to MESHUGA


Synonyms balmy, barmy [chiefly British], bats, batty, bedlam, bonkers, brainsick, bughouse [slang], certifiable, crackbrained, cracked, crackers, crackpot, cranky [dialect], crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, fruity [slang], gaga, haywire, kooky (also kookie), loco [slang], loony (also looney), loony tunes (or looney tunes), lunatic, mad, maniacal (also maniac), mental, insane (or meshugge also meshugah or meshuggah), moonstruck, non compos mentis, nuts, nutty, psycho, psychotic, scatty [chiefly British], screwy, unbalanced, unhinged, unsound, wacko (also whacko), wacky (also whacky), wud [chiefly Scottish]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meshuga

Matthew 15:18-19 KJV
18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

1 John 3:11-15 KJV
11. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
13. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
14. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

---

The Ezekiel Temple is the body of Messiah and the place of the soles of his feet forever.
And the Father likewise because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

2 Corinthians 5:14-17
14. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died;
15. and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
16. Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.
17. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. [Revelation 21:5]

John 7:37-39 YLT
37. And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink;
38. he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39. and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 19:33-35 KJV
33. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Ezekiel 47:1-12 KJV
1. Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.
2. Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.
3. And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ancles.
4. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.
5. Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
6. And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
7. Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
8. Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11. But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12. And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

Be sure you check out this link dragonfly; let the page load and run your mouse over the image file.
Not that I agree with all of the theology but the visual aid and the math do not lie. :)
http://www.k4communications.com/messianic/temple_gates.html

Revelation 22:1-7 KJV
1. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. [Ezekiel 47:7-12]
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6. And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, daq.




You think this a legitimate argument? So you are wiser than those who translated the Septuagint which all the New Testament authors quote from?

Actually, you don't "know" that. You might suspect it, but I'm of the opinion that they were quoting from the Dead Sea Scrolls or copies of them. You can believe as you will; you will anyway, but I'm just trying to make you (and others) aware of the dangers of informational thermodynamics - how errors compound as they are introduced from fallible men.

And Young's Literal Bible has nothing up against your vast wealth of superior knowledge?

Young's Literal Translation is slanted because of the influence Robert Young allowed while he was learning HOW to translate the Hebrew into English. He got much of his advice from anti-missionary, Jewish rabbis! They gave him "good advice" on the tenses of the verbs in the Hebrew, but neglected to say how those tenses would translate best into modern English!

You do realize that the Masoretic Text is only between one thousand and sixteen hundred years new correct? The Masoretic Text was compiled between 700AD and 1000AD which means that the older Greek Septuagint predates the Masoretic by at least a thousand years. In addition you are ignoring the clues which are actually given to you in the Masoretic Text, (shown in this thread and many others) which you claim to rely on even as you opt out for your own eyes of the flesh understanding above and beyond what many scholars before you have already grappled with to attempt an understanding of a very difficult topic. Sorry for your left handed euonumos-luck but this is the real world: Johnny Rotten does not get a trophy every time he strikes out, neither does he pass go, neither does he collect two hundred dollars, neither does he receive a get out of jail free card, neither do people lie to him and admit they are wrong when they know they are not simply to stroke his ego and keep him pacified, and neither does name calling and hatred get him an A+ in debate class. :)

Actually, I've read that one of the oldest copies of the Masoretic Text was dated at 1009 A.D. So, yeah, I know that. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated between 408 and 318 B.C.

Also, the CONTEXT is as old as the day the book was first written, and generally speaking, the author, Amowc, writing in 750-749 B.C., is going to tie things together in his own manuscript to make it a coherent whole, and the Divine Author would do no less.

Why am I not surprised that you take back what you said? Our words reveal what is in our hearts just as the Master says:

Sorry, but sometimes one just have to call a spade a spade and overturn the moneychangers' tables! Let me ask you a simple question, and you can take it from there: Do you think that Yeshua` loved the money-changers when He overturned their tables and made a whip of cords and drove them from the Temple?

Oh, let's ask a couple more questions just for clarification: Do you think that Yochanan the Immerser was showing love to the P'rushiym-Pharisees when he called them a "brood of vipers?" Do you think that Yeshua` loved the P'rushiym when He said the things He did in Matthew 23? Slightly worse language than calling someone "silly," don't you think?


John 7:37-39 YLT
37. And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink;
38. he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39. and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

And, just what Scripture is being quoted here? Where is such a thing found in the Tanakh? So, quoting from the Young's Literal Translation didn't help that very much, did it?
John 19:33-35 KJV
33. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Ever hear of the lymphatic system as opposed to the circulatory system? BOTH failed in Yeshua`s body. That is NOT the fulfillment of John 7:37-39!
Ezekiel 47:1-12 KJV
1. Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.
2. Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.
3. And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ancles.
4. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.
5. Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
6. And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
7. Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
8. Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11. But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12. And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

Be sure you check out this link dragonfly; let the page load and run your mouse over the image file.
Not that I agree with all of the theology but the visual aid and the math do not lie. :)
http://www.k4communications.com/messianic/temple_gates.html

Revelation 22:1-7 KJV
1. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. [Ezekiel 47:7-12]
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6. And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.


And, while I know this portion was written for dragonfly's benefit, you do know that Revelation 22:1-7 is not written about the same things as Ezeki'el 47:1-12, right? There are significant differences between the two and they are not related to the same events. Furthermore, Z'kharyahu's and Yechezk'el's visions ARE about the same time period, and Z'kharyahu's prophecy mentions TWO rivers, one flowing east, and the other flowing west! Furthermore, the image doesn't reflect the truth about this river; how does water flow uphill, as the image suggests? It's inaccurate and therefore serves more to confuse than explain.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Retrobyter,

Do you realise that you frequently present yourself as the ultimate authority on how to interpret scripture, purely on the basis of your linguistic knowledge.

It that really biblical?



Hi daq,

Hi dragonfly, not sure what you mean by this statement: "I don't think it's the same hill as your studies indicate."
Are you saying you do not agree with my conclusions or are you saying that you agree as my studies indicate?

Keep in mind that in the time when Messiah was crucified it was Roman law that anyone sentenced to death was put to death in the same place where he was arrested. In the case of Yeshua that would be the garden of Gethsemane or nearby, ("a stones throw"). The only reason Gethsemane is thought to have been just on the other side of the Kidron at the base of the modern "Mount of Olives" is because of a misunderstanding of what is written in John 18:1 along with a lack of comparison to the similar account of David fleeing from Absalom. The names of the mounts have been changed for obvious and nefarious reasons, and the "futurists" (of the flesh-minded kind) love to have it so. Indeed what is in modern times called "the Mount of Olives" was formerly known as "the Mount of Corruption" in old time. Likewise father Abraham did not lift up his eyes and see the Mount of Corruption "afar off" but rather Mount Moriah in the land of Moriah.

To your first question: my old Bible maps agree closely with yours, but modern maps (as with Sinai) have placed the Mount of Olives elsewhere.

With regard to the mount of corruption, I don't think it is the modern 'Mount of Olives' at all. I believe it is the real one. I have two Bibles - one from the first decade of the 20th century - both of which state in the margin that the mount of corruption is the (real) Mount of Olives. (The second Bible also shows the point of the Red Sea crossing in Exodus. I have not seen a modern Bible with a map showing that place.) It is possible to think that Solomon must have sacrificed to other gods on the other side of Kidron, but Jerusalem was much smaller then, and the nearer slopes of Olivet must have been convenient for him.


For a separate reason, I was reading Jeremiah 30, and came across v10 -
Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the Lord;
neither be dismayed, O Israel:
for, lo, I will save thee from afar,
and thy seed from the land of their captivity;
and Jacob shall return,
and shall be in rest, and be quiet,
and none shall make him afraid.

Please could you say whether the mention of 'afar' ties in linguistically, with the other references to 'afar' which you explained previously? Thanks.

 

[daq]

Shalom, daq.

You think this a legitimate argument? So you are wiser than those who translated the Septuagint which all the New Testament authors quote from?


Actually, you don't "know" that. You might suspect it, but I'm of the opinion that they were quoting from the Dead Sea Scrolls or copies of them. You can believe as you will; you will anyway, but I'm just trying to make you (and others) aware of the dangers of informational thermodynamics - how errors compound as they are introduced from fallible men.

And Young's Literal Bible has nothing up against your vast wealth of superior knowledge?

Young's Literal Translation is slanted because of the influence Robert Young allowed while he was learning HOW to translate the Hebrew into English. He got much of his advice from anti-missionary, Jewish rabbis! They gave him "good advice" on the tenses of the verbs in the Hebrew, but neglected to say how those tenses would translate best into modern English!

You do realize that the Masoretic Text is only between one thousand and sixteen hundred years new correct? The Masoretic Text was compiled between 700AD and 1000AD which means that the older Greek Septuagint predates the Masoretic by at least a thousand years. In addition you are ignoring the clues which are actually given to you in the Masoretic Text, (shown in this thread and many others) which you claim to rely on even as you opt out for your own eyes of the flesh understanding above and beyond what many scholars before you have already grappled with to attempt an understanding of a very difficult topic. Sorry for your left handed euonumos-luck but this is the real world: Johnny Rotten does not get a trophy every time he strikes out, neither does he pass go, neither does he collect two hundred dollars, neither does he receive a get out of jail free card, neither do people lie to him and admit they are wrong when they know they are not simply to stroke his ego and keep him pacified, and neither does name calling and hatred get him an A+ in debate class. :)

Actually, I've read that one of the oldest copies of the Masoretic Text was dated at 1009 A.D. So, yeah, I know that. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated between 408 and 318 B.C.

Also, the CONTEXT is as old as the day the book was first written, and generally speaking, the author, Amowc, writing in 750-749 B.C., is going to tie things together in his own manuscript to make it a coherent whole, and the Divine Author would do no less.

Why am I not surprised that you take back what you said? Our words reveal what is in our hearts just as the Master says:

Sorry, but sometimes one just have to call a spade a spade and overturn the moneychangers' tables! Let me ask you a simple question, and you can take it from there: Do you think that Yeshua` loved the money-changers when He overturned their tables and made a whip of cords and drove them from the Temple?

Oh, let's ask a couple more questions just for clarification: Do you think that Yochanan the Immerser was showing love to the P'rushiym-Pharisees when he called them a "brood of vipers?" Do you think that Yeshua` loved the P'rushiym when He said the things He did in Matthew 23? Slightly worse language than calling someone "silly," don't you think?


John 7:37-39 YLT
37. And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink;
38. he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39. and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

And, just what Scripture is being quoted here? Where is such a thing found in the Tanakh? So, quoting from the Young's Literal Translation didn't help that very much, did it?
John 19:33-35 KJV
33. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Ever hear of the lymphatic system as opposed to the circulatory system? BOTH failed in Yeshua`s body. That is NOT the fulfillment of John 7:37-39!
Ezekiel 47:1-12 KJV
1. Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.
2. Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.
3. And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ancles.
4. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.
5. Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
6. And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
7. Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
8. Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11. But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12. And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

Be sure you check out this link dragonfly; let the page load and run your mouse over the image file.
Not that I agree with all of the theology but the visual aid and the math do not lie. :)
http://www.k4communications.com/messianic/temple_gates.html

Revelation 22:1-7 KJV
1. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. [Ezekiel 47:7-12]
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6. And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.


And, while I know this portion was written for dragonfly's benefit, you do know that Revelation 22:1-7 is not written about the same things as Ezeki'el 47:1-12, right? There are significant differences between the two and they are not related to the same events. Furthermore, Z'kharyahu's and Yechezk'el's visions ARE about the same time period, and Z'kharyahu's prophecy mentions TWO rivers, one flowing east, and the other flowing west! Furthermore, the image doesn't reflect the truth about this river; how does water flow uphill, as the image suggests? It's inaccurate and therefore serves more to confuse than explain.

Do you really believe the intent of the artist in one of those frames is to show water flowing uphill? You are simply engaged in smear tactics against anyone that does not support your physical and flesh-minded interpretations of the Spirit and supernal Word of God. From the elders who translated the Septuagint to Robert Young it appears you show no regard for the work of anyone else who went before you in any of these things. It appears your entire city must needs be burnt to the ground for there is an idol unto yourself in every corner of your city. It must necessarily be this way for the Word of God to be fulfilled in each of us, each in his own appointed times, and if indeed one is to be clothed from above with the heavenly Tabernacle-Tent of God. You are no different from any other man whether it be Cephas-Paulos, Yakobos-James, Apollos, Alexander the coppersmith, or myself included: you will find out the hard way if indeed you overcome in your own hour of trial and are not already the castaway twice dead carcass of a fish. :lol:

Shalom, daq.

That's a LOAD of garbage! How do you EVER embolden yourself to say such malarkey?! Have you no sense at all?!! Have you no SHAME at all?!! Are you trying to drive EVERYONE as crazy as you?! Is it totally impossible for you to say you simply were wrong? It's easy to say; say it with me, "I was wrong." That's all you had to say! What is all this gibberish that you keep spouting?!

Let's take the time to go through the last post and dissect it. My words will be purple:

That's just dumb. Since when is 1 Samu'el 20 a "prophecy of the Messiah?!" I take back what I said earlier; you ARE "silly!"

No, it was a TYPICAL move by archers practicing to carry so many arrows. It gives one a chance to improve one's aim before one must gather the arrows to try again One also doesn't need to be carrying too many arrows if he's shooting at an immovable target; no sense carrying too much weight. You, sir, are a master manipulator. You would take a mere fact like three days and three arrows and equate it with ... what? ... three days and three nights? And, then you say that this passage, a simple historical account of Daviyd and Yohonatan, being a Messianic prophecy is a "REALITY?" You need to have a "reality CHECK!" The third day was because of Yohanatan's calculation: He reasoned that his father Sha'uwl would miss Daviyd but not say anything the first day. The second day, Sha'uwl would confront Yohanatan, asking where Daviyd was and that would give his son the information he would need to instruct Daviyd the third day.

Oh, so now you use these commentators "to support your view" AND you're not going to correct me only but also all these commentators, as well? Talk about ARROGANCE! The stone MAY have had some "cleft or cave" in it or the entrance to some underground "cavern," but if it did, it would be well known.

Also concerning your reasoning of man and this statement above in Retrobyter Red:
The clift, cleft, cave, or cavern wherein David likely hid himself is indeed well known to the Stone of Ezel ~

Most simply do not know where the Stone of Ezel is located. :)
However, it is difficult to understand how anyone could willingly make himself so blind after seeing it.
For a physical man seeing only physical things you appear quite selective in the physical evidence you will receive! :lol:

---

Hi Retrobyter,

Do you realise that you frequently present yourself as the ultimate authority on how to interpret scripture, purely on the basis of your linguistic knowledge.

It that really biblical?

Hi daq,

To your first question: my old Bible maps agree closely with yours, but modern maps (as with Sinai) have placed the Mount of Olives elsewhere.

With regard to the mount of corruption, I don't think it is the modern 'Mount of Olives' at all. I believe it is the real one. I have two Bibles - one from the first decade of the 20th century - both of which state in the margin that the mount of corruption is the (real) Mount of Olives. (The second Bible also shows the point of the Red Sea crossing in Exodus. I have not seen a modern Bible with a map showing that place.) It is possible to think that Solomon must have sacrificed to other gods on the other side of Kidron, but Jerusalem was much smaller then, and the nearer slopes of Olivet must have been convenient for him.


For a separate reason, I was reading Jeremiah 30, and came across v10 -
Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the Lord;
neither be dismayed, O Israel:
for, lo, I will save thee from afar,
and thy seed from the land of their captivity;
and Jacob shall return,
and shall be in rest, and be quiet,
and none shall make him afraid.

Please could you say whether the mention of 'afar' ties in linguistically, with the other references to 'afar' which you explained previously? Thanks.

It is the same word "merachowq" ("me" - "from") HSN#7350 "rachowk" - "afar". The section begins in the previous chapter of Jeremiah and thus concerns the people who went to Babylon as commanded, (for their own good) and many were already there. This is the context and therefore the understanding should be that God would save them "from afar" (in the Mount of YHWH it shall be seen) while they were yet in Babylon. In supernal thinking the circumstances are no different today because we are likewise saved from afar; at the Cross of Messiah, which stood at the House Afar, "Beyt-ha-Merchaq" (2 Samuel 15:17). There are some here making perfect examples of the symbolism as yet they remain in spiritual Babylon and each one has his own seventy turnings which must be accomplished before the Master gives "the morning star" so as to fill each stone full of the light of his temple in a good and expected End, (Revelation 2:27-28, Revelation 22:16). That is, if indeed one overcomes in his or her own appointed times; but if not there is another "morning star" of the dark light, for certain ones receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved. God has the right to send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, thinking themselves mighty ones lording over the flocks in their own power to will; and it is the High Priest of YHWH that divides the light from the darkness: either a white stone with a new name written therein or a black stone of the blackness of darkness forever. :)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, dragonfly.

Hi Retrobyter,

Do you realise that you frequently present yourself as the ultimate authority on how to interpret scripture, purely on the basis of your linguistic knowledge.

It that really biblical?

...

Yes, I am very opinionated, and sometimes that can make me over-bearing when I know that I'm right. But, you see, it's because the Scriptures are much more definitive than allegorists think, and the more that they rely on allegory, the less credit they give to the Author or to the individual authors that they knew what they were talking about when they wrote their books! It's just WRONG to put words in the authors' mouths! And, if the individual, human authors had no intention in their writings to give some "allegorical" or "supernal" understanding to their writings, what makes one think that God would endorse it?!

I believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said, and since HE told His prophets what to write, I believe one can be SURE that they also said what they meant and meant what they said! Sure, there's some figurative speech in the Bible, but I also know that it is NOT open to interpretation! Furthermore, it is well telegraphed that it is indeed figurative language. God would NEVER have authorized such confusion that is found in the free association and the imaginative ways that some of the Scriptures have been put together by allegorists, even right here in this forum! God is an OBJECTIVE GOD, not a subjective One! One absolutely CANNOT go around saying God really meant this or really meant that! Those are grounds for attracting His disfavor! He may love His children and one's justification would never be in jeopardy; however, God still disciplines His children ... sometimes harshly! Just ask the children of Isra'el about that! So, it boggles my mind to think that anyone would PURPOSELY risk His disfavor, even if he thought that somehow he was doing God a favor!

And, the importance of understanding the details of the languages in which God's Word was written is PARAMOUNT!!! Without a good understanding of what one is reading, how in the world can he expect to correctly understand the thoughts behind the words?!

Here's an obvious one to make my point: How often have you heard people use the phrase, "This is the day which the LORD hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it," referring to a Sunday morning? And yet, if one would go to the Scripture in question, namely Psalm 118, the context and the word choices can help one to better understand what the verse means:


Psalm 118:13-29
13 Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation (RESCUE).
15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation (RESCUE) is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:
20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation (RESCUE).
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
25 Save now, I beseech thee (Hebrew: howshi`aah naa' means "rescue-us now" = transliterated into Greek "hosanna"), O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord: we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord.
27 God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.
28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee.
29 O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
KJV

Thus, verse 24 is definitely within the context of the return of the LORD when the LORD, through His Messiah, stands up for His people, the children of Isra'el, and is NOT about any old Sunday!

 

[daq]

Shalom, dragonfly.


Yes, I am very opinionated, and sometimes that can make me over-bearing when I know that I'm right. But, you see, it's because the Scriptures are much more definitive than allegorists think, and the more that they rely on allegory, the less credit they give to the Author or to the individual authors that they knew what they were talking about when they wrote their books! It's just WRONG to put words in the authors' mouths! And, if the individual, human authors had no intention in their writings to give some "allegorical" or "supernal" understanding to their writings, what makes one think that God would endorse it?!

I believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said, and since HE told His prophets what to write, I believe one can be SURE that they also said what they meant and meant what they said! Sure, there's some figurative speech in the Bible, but I also know that it is NOT open to interpretation! Furthermore, it is well telegraphed that it is indeed figurative language. God would NEVER have authorized such confusion that is found in the free association and the imaginative ways that some of the Scriptures have been put together by allegorists, even right here in this forum! God is an OBJECTIVE GOD, not a subjective One! One absolutely CANNOT go around saying God really meant this or really meant that! Those are grounds for attracting His disfavor! He may love His children and one's justification would never be in jeopardy; however, God still disciplines His children ... sometimes harshly! Just ask the children of Isra'el about that! So, it boggles my mind to think that anyone would PURPOSELY risk His disfavor, even if he thought that somehow he was doing God a favor!

And, the importance of understanding the details of the languages in which God's Word was written is PARAMOUNT!!! Without a good understanding of what one is reading, how in the world can he expect to correctly understand the thoughts behind the words?!

Here's an obvious one to make my point: How often have you heard people use the phrase, "This is the day which the LORD hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it," referring to a Sunday morning? And yet, if one would go to the Scripture in question, namely Psalm 118, the context and the word choices can help one to better understand what the verse means:


Psalm 118:13-29
13 Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation (RESCUE).
15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation (RESCUE) is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:
20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation (RESCUE).
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
25 Save now, I beseech thee (Hebrew: howshi`aah naa' means "rescue-us now" = transliterated into Greek "hosanna"), O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord: we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord.
27 God is the Lord, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.
28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee.
29 O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
KJV

Thus, verse 24 is definitely within the context of the return of the LORD when the LORD, through His Messiah, stands up for His people, the children of Isra'el, and is NOT about any old Sunday!

Who are you to cast the shadow of such an accusation against others when you yourself will not even accept the plain Scripture in the way it is written and delivered from the Master himself? Do you not understand that the Son "emptied" himself and that the Father spoke through the Son? How many times have you now danced around the following statement with the various definitions and transliterations so as to change the meaning of the text?

Luke 17:20-21 ASV
20. And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21. neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, there! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17:20-21 YLT
20. And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, 'The reign of God doth not come with observation;
21. nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.'

Luke 17:20-21 Weymouth's New Testament
20. Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, He answered, "The Kingdom of God does not so come that you can stealthily watch for it.
21. Nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' - for the Kingdom of God is within you."

Luke 17:20-21 NIV
20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed,
21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Luke 17:20-21 ESV
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Luke 17:20-21 KJV
20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Desolating Abomination - Post#4-13
Desolating Abomination - Post#51
So….The New Earth and Heaven - Post#6-25

And the same with this statement which you completely ignore in your mindset:

Matthew 26:64-66 KJV
64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter [apo-arti "from now on"] shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Mark 14:61-64 KJV
61. But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62. And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64. Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

And why does the high priest say that this statement is blasphemy?
Because he knows the throne of God is the Mercy Seat upon the Ark of the Covenant.
Likewise he knows the power of the meaning of coming on "the clouds of heaven" with the Father:

Leviticus 16:2 KJV
2. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Leviticus 16:12-13 KJV
12. And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:
13. And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:

Revelation 8:3-5 KJV
3. And another angel ["a different messenger"] came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
4. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
5. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

And many other critical statements you likewise ignore in favor of a physical world empire-kingdom:

John 18:35-36 KJV
35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

If you refuse to believe these statements of Yeshua then how is it you think you will understand those who do believe them?

John 8:23-25 KJV
23. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
25. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

 

[ENOCH2010]

I think I finally got my answer from daq. daq you are like the Pharisees of the past, you don't believe Jesus is going to come again.

 

[dragonfly]

I think I finally got my answer from daq. daq you are like the Pharisees of the past, you don't believe Jesus is going to come again.

Hi Enoch,

Could you help me out, please?

Do you believe this prophecy of Jesus John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him, came to pass in the disciples lives?



If you believe it did not, would that mean you believe the disciples were not expecting to experience it in their lifetime?

If you think it's future (to them, or us, or, are you a cessationist) when do you think it's going to happen?


Please offer some verses from the New Testament which help to explain your understanding. Thanks. :)

 

[daq]

I think I finally got my answer from daq. daq you are like the Pharisees of the past, you don't believe Jesus is going to come again.

That is yet another false statement. You never asked me if Yeshua was "going to come again" as you now state it. You are more of a Pharisee than those you accuse because you speak like them and their Scribes attempting to catch people in their words. You asked me if Yeshua was coming again "IN BODILY FORM" and I asked you to explain what you mean by such a statement, (and still you refuse to do any such thing as to explain yourself). Likewise Retrobyter believes that New Jerusalem is a literal city with literal foundations, literal streets made of pure gold, and literal gates made of pearl set in literal walls which is literally going to descend from the sky to the earth. Do you also believe the same thing about New Jerusalem as Retrobyter? Do you understand that such a city according to those dimensions would cover all of the Middle East? Do you also separate "Jerusalem of Above" from "New Jerusalem" so that you too can believe all things to be strictly literal as Retrobyter does when he hammers the Scripture into his own mold from his own imagination? However if "Jerusalem of Above" and "New Jerusalem" are the same heavenly city then Paul states that she is our covenant "mother" (Galatians 4:24-26) and the writer of Hebrews likewise states that we have already come to mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and congregation of the firstborn which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to the Covenant of a new Mediator Yeshua, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks of better things than that of Abel, (Hebrews 12:22-24). In addition to your accusation you never answered my questions to you. If Yeshua returns "in bodily form" will you keep his commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

John 6:47-57 KJV
47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Do you have an answer or should I do as you do, assume you have answered, and presume your nickname is Hannibal? :lol:

 

[ENOCH2010]

daq the Pharisees of old didn't recognize the Christ when he came the first time, and likewise a lot of people won't recognize Him when He comes the second time.

Yes, like Roy I look for a city whose builder and maker is God to descend out of the sky. Yes it's a rather large city 1500 miles square, and Jesus will be in bodily form not some spirit floating around as the wind.

The Lords supper in the upper room wasn't meant to be taken literal, I know you are aware of all the scripture that says not to eat blood

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Retrobyter,

Thanks for your reply, but you didn't really answer my question. I asked if your way of using the language to limit the meaning to what's on the surface of the page is 'biblical'? You said:

Yes, I am very opinionated, and sometimes that can make me over-bearing when I know that I'm right. But, you see, it's because the Scriptures are much more definitive than allegorists think, and the more that they rely on allegory, the less credit they give to the Author or to the individual authors that they knew what they were talking about when they wrote their books! It's just WRONG to put words in the authors' mouths! And, if the individual, human authors had no intention in their writings to give some "allegorical" or "supernal" understanding to their writings, what makes one think that God would endorse it?!

I believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said, and since HE told His prophets what to write, I believe one can be SURE that they also said what they meant and meant what they said! Sure, there's some figurative speech in the Bible, but I also know that it is NOT open to interpretation! Furthermore, it is well telegraphed that it is indeed figurative language. God would NEVER have authorized such confusion that is found in the free association and the imaginative ways that some of the Scriptures have been put together by allegorists, even right here in this forum! God is an OBJECTIVE GOD, not a subjective One! One absolutely CANNOT go around saying God really meant this or really meant that! Those are grounds for attracting His disfavor! He may love His children and one's justification would never be in jeopardy; however, God still disciplines His children ... sometimes harshly! Just ask the children of Isra'el about that! So, it boggles my mind to think that anyone would PURPOSELY risk His disfavor, even if he thought that somehow he was doing God a favor!

And, the importance of understanding the details of the languages in which God's Word was written is PARAMOUNT!!!

Your two statements 'GOD, not a subjective One' and 'Without a good understanding of what one is reading, how in the world can he expect to correctly understand the thoughts behind the words?!' declare that you believe people with no Greek cannot 'expect... correctly ... to understand' God's 'thoughts'. Only people educated in a certain way have the insider knowledge which permits them to say what God's thinks. Hmm. Your claim that God is not 'subjective', flies in the face of His entire revelation of Himself throughout scripture. I don't find any of that in my Bible. Especially, I don't find that Messiah was not cut off from His people, in fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy. I find the complete opposite. As another thread title asks 'Are we reading the same Bible?' Or should the question really be about the people doing the reading?

What is it that's happened to me and daq and Rex and others who pass through here, that has not happened to you?

I'm sure you'll find many others like you, who cannot 'see' beneath the surface of the page, and who only 'hear' what is written, and that is exactly the difficulty Jesus faced during His earthly ministry - people who didn't know what He was talking about. They heard a word like 'leaven', and assumed He was talking about bread. At least the disciples had a suspicion He might be meaning something else. They were correct but they didn't know what.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:
for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Did the 'Spirit of truth' come?

Did He 'guide' the disciples into 'all truth'? Does He come to disciples today, and guide them into all truth?

Can you 'bear' to receive a greater revelation of Christ?



Hi daq,

Thanks for your reply to my question. We are still circling Hebrews 9:15 and Romans 4:16. In the Mount of God it shall be seen. :)

 

[daq]

daq the Pharisees of old didn't recognize the Christ when he came the first time, and likewise a lot of people won't recognize Him when He comes the second time.

Yes, like Roy I look for a city whose builder and maker is God to descend out of the sky. Yes it's a rather large city 1500 miles square, and Jesus will be in bodily form not some spirit floating around as the wind.

The Lords supper in the upper room wasn't meant to be taken literal, I know you are aware of all the scripture that says not to eat blood

You, like Retro, are living in a fantasy world where the special elect ones such as yourself get to play God and decide what is literal and what is not. Therefore everyone who does not agree with you is outside "the will of God" because in the recesses of your heart and mind you believe that only you truly know the Word and will of God. However, you do not have Scripture to support anything you have said; for the same reason you appear to be afraid to quote the answer given from the Scripture. Could it be that you know the answer from the passage nullifies your godhood image of yourself and your own private interpretation of the Scripture?

John 6:61-71 KJV
61. When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71. He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

1) This does not occur in the upper room at the Passover Seder.
2) Did they see the Son of man ascend back up where he was before as he says here? Yes, Luke 24:45-51 and Acts 1:9-11.
3) Yeshua says nothing about only these words being Spirit and Life. Heaven and earth shall pass away but not his words.
4) All of the words of the Master are Spirit and Life because the Logos which he spoke was not his own but the Father's.
5) The flesh profits absolutely nothing; if therefore one continues to walk according to the flesh he will die in his sins.
6) The betrayers of Yeshua are those twisting his words so as to insert their own fanciful interpretations into the Scripture.
7) You are the one who fits the definition of a modern Sadducee, Scribe, or Pharisee.
8) Judas Iskariot was probably a Sicarii rebel who also sought a physical kingdom.

Hi daq,

Thanks for your reply to my question. We are still circling Hebrews 9:15 and Romans 4:16. In the Mount of God it shall be seen. :)

Amen, and as for Hebrews 9:15, "New Jerusalem" is the kainos-New Covenant for those with the eyes of the Spirit.

As is the mother: so is the daughter . . . :)